Tools

Typography

Excerpts from RadFemCollective interview. Julie writes for The Guardian and The Sunday Telegraph, so her views are fair game starting with: "I now think we need to listen to ... feminists that we disagree with, so that we can actually start to understand where they are coming from and why, so that we can then break down the nonsense that they are spouting". I could not agree more, so lets do that shall we:

All her own work:

"Political lesbians are really crucial, because we were the ones that first said that women should be able to determine their own sexuality. We were the ones that said that all women can be lesbians and that heterosexuality is compulsory under a system of male supremacy. We were the ones that said that until women had a free choice, that we had to speak about heterosexuality as imposed upon us, rather freely chosen...Political lesbians were the ones that said to women: “you can be lesbians, you can be non monogamous, you can have loads of sex, with loads of women, you can enjoy sex and it doesn’t have to be something that is imposed upon you"

Discussion in italics: Her point - sexuality is a choice. Straight women need to be mentally stronger, in order to overrule their natural sexual attraction to men and to create a sexual attraction to women when none exists. In short one can choose to be gay or straight. Is that not what the anti-gay christian lobby have been saying, that gays have been quite rightly fighting for so many years. How does this not set back the cause of gay acceptance?

"So I think political lesbianism has a crucial role, because it tells women that sexuality is political under a system of male supremacy. It tells us that sexual acts are all political and that none of them are without meaning. And it also clearly defines the fact that equality and meaningful sexual pleasure can be achieved far easier with women than it can be with men under this system."

So the reason why Julie sides with the christian gay hate lobby is so that she can make this statement - that all sex is political, women deliberately and voluntarily choose to be oppressed by having heterosexual sex, or choose not to be oppressed by choosing lesbian sex. Those are the only options.

"What the libertarians did when they borrowed US gay male culture was they focused obsessively on sexual practice, and they eroticised inequality, subordination, pain and dominance."

We did? I did not know that, should we give it back? Funny thing is I don't recall ever sitting around at a Libertarian booze up eroticising violence. I think I was just too busy fantacising about a world where everyone is free to be themselves without radical christians or radical feminists imposing their will on others. Julie includes this attempted demolition of the growing Libertarian movement for a very good reason. Libertarians would say to people like Julie you are free to do exactly what you describe, we are not going to judge or control you. Libertarianism is the natural enemy of jackboot sexuality, whomever is responsible for it. And to be clear, in this case it is Julie.

"So radical feminism saw heterosexuality under patriarchy as massively problematic, because it benefited men and it disadvantaged women. It meant that the family structure was one that had the man at the Head of the household – even if he wasn’t a dinosaur...It meant that he did things to her, sexually."

There it is, you just knew it was coming - all hetero sex is him imposing his will on her, like she never wants it herself. Seriously if I had a dime for every time I got on the job because she wanted it, or she initiated it because she was ovulating, and ovulation usually takes 3 orgasms to satiate OR we do it all over again tonight. See Julie this is why women are turning away from feminism, it is stupid precepts like this. I know it is essential to sustain the "all hetero sex is about male power over women" but the problem is women are not buying it because they know their men suck it up as often as they do. I mean really, when did you study hetero sex, 1890?

"It really was incredibly powerful being able to be with other women and not feel ashamed or inhibited about sex or about intimate parts of our bodies. And that was radical feminism {that did that}."

Women can I confirm please - you never talked about sex or your intimate parts with other women before radical feminists like Julie and Andrea Dworkin freed you to do so? Gee they have done an amazing job then getting around the whole world like little lesbian tinker bells waving their magic wands and pronouncing each women in turn free to talk about their intimate parts. Not the whole world of course, they did miss Saudi Arabia, Persia, the Levant, North Africa and parts of Asia and the subcontinent, but sshhhh we dont talk about that, those people actually fight back.

Q: How do we dismantle gender? A: "We have to get rid of it. There is no point looking at reforming it. It would be like saying we could reform the Tory party. We just need to abolish and obliterate it. We need to stop talking about it like it’s a thing. We need to start laughing at those that {believe gender exists} Because all gender is, is an imposition of subordination on women, and the opposite of that of course is the dominance of men, who get privilege by being born male, and we get the opposite. So I think we have to just start laughing at it...and saying {gender} is actually not real."

So when I was marching for gay rights, for the right to have society accept that it was possible for a man to be in a women's body and vice versa, for the right to reassign gender I was actually oppressing women because gender does not exist, those people who feel they have a mismatch between body and mind are what...wrong becase gender does not exist? What you have just said is insulting to trans people, a trans person is by definition gender-oriented. Are you going to laugh at them Julie? This comes up again below.

Surprisingly we now have some common ground:

Q: Andrea Dworkin believed that pornography was the powerhouse of male supremacy. is this analysis still pertinent in your view? A: Yes and no... I think that we talk about the problems with pornography as if it is removed from the sex trade, and as if the women are not prostituted within it. So I would replace the word “pornography” with the words “the sex trade”...pornography is prostitution with a camera. " {see original for actual wording, I shortened it for impact}.

Love that line. Completely agree with that. Now let me spoil it by pointing out that according to Australia's Eros Foundation women are 50% of the new subscribers to porn sites, and their first preference is lesbian porn. So I don't know if that still makes it "prostitution with a camera" when women make it (have you checked the credits on a porn film lately) women star in it and women watch it. I say yes but I am curious about how Radfems handle that. Crickets I expect. Oh I should also ask if the men in a porn film, especially the booming segment of female domination is still female rape and male advantage. Getting kicked in the balls or pissed on doesn't look like male advantage and female subservience but what do I know.

Q: Will heterosexuality survive women’s liberation? A: "It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes...we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit. I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually...I would love to see a women’s liberation that results in women turning away from men and saying: “when you come back as human beings, then we might look again.”

From this we know that Julie would lock up all men, which is a natural extension of her belief that men are not human beings. Julie you understand that men have mothers, sisters & lovers who may actually like their men at home with them? Oh wait she has this covered:

"But the vast majority of women that spout that kind of nonsense are doing so because they are scared of the feminism that means they have to name men as the problem, because they know the punishment they will get if they do. So the civil liberties implications of no platforming for radical feminists are huge, because we won’t get our civil liberties until we actually achieve our goals as radical feminists."

OK so women really do want to lock up their men, but they are afraid of supporting that because of "the punishment they will get". I assume you mean male to female violence, rather than the punishment of sleeping alone and having sex with a soft but rigid processed hydrocarbon device. Oh wait they won't be alone they will have their next door neighbour in bed enjoying that wonderous lesbian sex you have opened their eyes to. In your head do you see these women puttting photos of you on their walls, Julie? Lining up outside your home for that special Julie loving, out of sheer gratitude for freeing them penises?

"But I now think we need to listen to people, and we need to listen to feminists that we disagree with also, so that we can actually start to understand where they are coming from and why, so that we can then break down the nonsense that they are spouting. Because lets face it, we know we are right...radical feminism is common sense."

Common sense...googles common sense just in case..no, no it still means what I think it means...

"On the one hand you have got utter idiots like Laurie Penny who are simply coming out with the stuff that she does because she knows that the groups she is supporting, that are pro-trans, pro-sex work, and pro- other anti-women nonsense, are run by very high profile, powerful libertarian men."

Oh ok that answers my question on Trans, she would laugh at them, she really does not like Trans. They are a contradiction to her "gender is a construct" philosophy, with all that woman feeling like she is really a boy. Traitors all of them hey Julie. Are you SURE you are not working for the Christian hate brigade? And again with the libertarian men. But not women apparently. Only Libertarian men are a threat. And Laurie Penny. She does not like Laurie Penny either.

"If we can’t get the mainstream feminists on board we don’t have enough numbers, so we do have to work with those women. We do have to somehow get through their gatekeepers who are hostile Men’s Rights Activists and vicious pornographers like Ana Spam. We have to find a way to speak to them so that they can understand and appreciate our ideas, and know that they will be supported"

What Julie just said was this. Feminists have as their gatekeepers Men's Rights Activists. Seriously. Have you ever seen a feminist give a MRA the time of day except to abuse them? How the frig are MRAs acting as feminist gatekeepers. I guess she needed a man to blame for mainstream feminists not agreeing with her radical beleifs. It is always a man's fault - now I know where the MRAs actualy get that from. I just thought they were being bitter - but no, no Julie actually just said exactly that. I love th eimplicit assumption that once men are taken off to their internment camps that feminists will have their minds freed and will realise that everything Julie says is right, and is just plain common sense.